Using a Canon EOS-30D for deepsky?

On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:21:08 +0100, Pete Lawrence
wrote:

Hiding your results away benefits no one. No one learns, no one gets
encouraged to do anything. It's called popularising.

Well this isn't right is it!? Popularising is the opposite of this of
course. Sorry - poor re-edit.
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

In article .com, wrote:
My point is that I have no vanity to titilate so I'm not posting a plug
every 2.5 days.


If you think that Pete's posting simply to stroke his ego, you're very much
mistaken.

His posts are informative, fun, and he's rarely too busy to answer a question.
And unlike you he's always friendly.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

In article , Pete Lawrence wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:21:08 +0100, Pete Lawrence
wrote:

Hiding your results away benefits no one. No one learns, no one gets
encouraged to do anything. It's called popularising.

Well this isn't right is it!? Popularising is the opposite of this of
course. Sorry - poor re-edit.

Late night? :-)

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

On 17 May 2006 02:53:35 -0700, wrote:

My point is that I have no vanity to titilate so I'm not posting a plug
every 2.5 days. Actually, I never do. What this had to do with the OP I
still can't answer, better ask Pete himself.

Jo asked whether a 30D was suitable for deep-sky imaging.

You suggested that the DSLR response was poor and brought up the
comparison with a CCD in your response to Colin Dawson.

I pointed Jo to the Yahoo Digital_Astro group and suggested that she
ask you for comparitive shots.

You then inferred I was a show off posting day and night.

Jim, kindly defended me.

You're now defending your statement to Jim and now seem to be
inferring that I'm vain posting a plug for myself every 2.5 days.

Do try and keep up dear boy!
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

In ps.com,
typed:

It just shows how knowledgeable you are about lens, that is not at
all.
Thanks for correcting my grammar anyhow.


Pity this is developing into a flame war. In view of the images that Pete
regularly presents here, I'm not inclined to dismiss his opinions on lenses
so lightly.

Jo

Jim wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
My point is that I have no vanity to titilate so I'm not posting a plug
every 2.5 days.


If you think that Pete's posting simply to stroke his ego, you're very much
mistaken.

It cames in the same package.


His posts are informative, fun, and he's rarely too busy to answer a question.
And unlike you he's always friendly.

Good. Ask him a question then. I won't bother you with an answer.

Andrea T.

In article .com, wrote:

His posts are informative, fun, and he's rarely too busy to answer a question.
And unlike you he's always friendly.

Good. Ask him a question then. I won't bother you with an answer.

A beautiful summation of the facts.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:18:06 +0100, "Jo"
wrote:

In ps.com,
typed:

It just shows how knowledgeable you are about lens, that is not at
all.
Thanks for correcting my grammar anyhow.


Pity this is developing into a flame war. In view of the images that Pete
regularly presents here, I'm not inclined to dismiss his opinions on lenses
so lightly.

Hi Jo, the lenses aren't top notch quality which comes as no surprise
really, but Andrea's description of them was a bit strong IMO.

Apologies for taking the thread off track. It's just irritating when
certain individuals present constant negativity. One of the things I
used to hate about astronomy was being told what I could and could not
see with certain size instruments. This perpetuates myths and puts
people off having a go.

I read Andrea's DSLR comments in the same light. There are many fine
examples of astro-shots out there which will confirm that these
devices can and do deliver. Thankfully, because individuals take pride
in what they do and post their images, it's possible to find them
quite easily dong a simple Google search with the camera model and
even, if you wnt to check the lens quality out, a brief description of
the lens (e.g. "18mm").

A quick search shows a few examples...
http://www.thedukes.org/astro/pix.html
http://www.pbase.com/dco/astrophotography
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/courtright.html

General daylight photos with a kit lens...
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dougsmit/photohome.html

Comparative tests against an "L" lens
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/shootout.


--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

Pete Lawrence wrote:
On 17 May 2006 01:40:49 -0700, wrote:

Jo - a good place to get specific information on these cameras is the
Yahoo Digital_Astro group. There are loads of fantastic example shots
showing what people have achieved with many different models of DSLR.
If you pick a few off the digital_astro site and asked Andrea nicely,
I'm sure he'd be only too pleased to show you his CCD equivalents ;-)

Contrary to you, I don't show my pics around every other day or night
nor do I like to show off.

I know you don't. You like to criticise and spout off without actually
putting up any concrete examples.

I do criticise without much like or dislike. Just matter of facts
arguments. If I do need to put up an example I'll do, but I rarely need
to.

I put my pics up because it gives me
pleasure to do so. I like to think it encourages others to try and
have a go themselves. Of course I like the feedback - it's nice to
know others have looked at the pictures and have enjoyed them.


I guess the first lines tells it all.

Hiding your results away benefits no one. No one learns, no one gets
encouraged to do anything.

My results mean a lot to me, which is of the uttermost importance of
course. Whether people will like it or not I don't give a damn as I'm
not in it to please people. I do like technically grounded criticisms
but then I wouldn't post the darn thing here but rather in the
appropriate forums. As for learning from a nice picture that's utter
hogwash and you know it. If you want people to learn your techniques
than post a link the course website. As for being inspiring, you'd
better be inspired from within or this hobby ain't gonna last.

It's called popularising. You appear to be
contrary to me in this respect too. From emails I recieved, a fair
number of PSTs were sold after I posted my recent solar images. To me,
that's what it's all about.

So you're to encourage people to part from their hard-earned money for
a vastly useless exercise?


As I'm sure you yourself do, I also spend a fair amount of time
answering private emails trying to help people move forward in
imaging.

Fortunately enough, not too many these days. It's one of the benefits
you enjoy when you're not that much on the fornt page every day, in a
manner of speaking of course.


You won't be interested in this at all, but I had an email from an
elderly lady yesterday. She told me that she went to Turkey to see the
eclipse. She didn't have a stills camera but did manage to take some
video footage of the event which she treasured. Unfortunately the tape
got ruined which upset her tremendously. She contacted me because she
was worried I was going to remove my eclipse photos from the web and
she didn't know how to take a copy of them herself. I'm sending her a
copy of the page, all images and have requested a few others that
decided to 'show-off' with theirs to contribute too.

So you're the local hero. Good for you.


You'd better get yourself some support mate because if I keep posting
my pictures, that chip on your shoulder is going to make you rather
unbalanced.

You keeping posting pictures disturbes me in the least. I find it just
of poor taste. I'd like to remind you that is you that brought in all
these arguments about images, not me.


Comparing DSLR stuff with CCD stuff is
extremely unfair to the DSLRs, if the same criteria have to be applied.
They're best compared with film, IMO. This said my CCD camera images
blow off anything that could have been down on my setup and in my
locale with any sort of DSLR easily.

Show us an example then. Go on - stop spouting and show something that
could actually be useful.

They're not useful. They are just pictures.


Perhaps you don't like to because you can't attain the level of
perfection you so often preach at others?

Any preference?

Andrea T.

On 17 May 2006 03:28:05 -0700, wrote:

My point is that I have no vanity to titilate so I'm not posting a plug
every 2.5 days.

If you think that Pete's posting simply to stroke his ego, you're very much
mistaken.

It cames in the same package.

Eh?

So you're saying that everyone who posts images or links to their
images does so to stroke their own ego?

So when you post to groups like, for example, the Yahoo Mars Observers
group you do so to stroke your own ego?

I think you're judging others by your own skewed standards Andrea.
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk